Validity of the Walsall Community Pressure Sore Risk Calculator

Abstract

The Walsall Community Risk Score Calculator has been in use of the past 8 years. Outcomes from a trust-wide prevalence audit identified that this assessment tool may benefit from re-evaluation. This study examined the tool's validity and reliability and has resulted in some changes being made to the original score. To assess validity, a cross-sectional study of 720 patients was undertaken looking at the incidence of pressure damage, despite intervention, over a 12-week period. Using logistic regression analysis new weightings for each category were developed. This also led to the removal of one factor (bodily pain) which did not appear to contribute to increased risk of pressure damage. The updated score shows an improved prediction of pressure sore development compared with the existing method.

Norton, Waterlow and Braden scores: a review of the literature and a comparison between the scores and clinical judgement

“…How many factors are used and how these are added has been a subject of few studies. One large study evaluated the Walsall score and pain was taken out as a factor as it did not seem to increase risk (Chaloner & Franks 2000). Other studies have shown removing sub‐scores from Waterlow allow similar or better prediction of incidence, but the sub‐scores removed are different for various client groups (Anthony et al.…”

Utilisation of a Suite of Screening Tools to Determine Adverse Healthcare Outcomes in an Older Frail Population Admitted to a Community Virtual Ward

“…A modified version of the Barthel Index (BI) was used to assess basic activities of daily living with scores up to 20 points (independent) (cut-off < 16 indicates low dependency) and a lower score of 5 indicating maximum dependency levels [ 25 ]. Pressure ulcer risk was measured using the Walsall pressure ulcer risk tool (cut-off > 3 indicates high risk) [ 26 ]. The Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) assessed nutritional status with a cut-off of 1 (moderate risk) to ≥2 (high risk) [ 27 , 28 ].…”

Patient perceptions and understanding of pressure ulcer risk in the community: Empirical Research Qualitative

“…The district nurse working in each community nursing team acted as a gatekeeper to identify and recruit potential eligible participants. The district nursing teams broadly used a PU risk tool (the Walsall assessment score 4 or above, Chaloner & Franks, 2013) to determine appropriate patients at PU risk alongside contextual factors such as adult status and living in the community. Participants were excluded if they currently had a PU or lacked capacity to consent or participate in interviews (Table 1).…”